This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

you may want to change the link to 'this pregnant woman' on your User page as I clicked the link and it seems she had a miscarriage. 86.137.57.73 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't checked up on any of the sites since I made that list after googling "Krimpet" a while back; I apologize for the unintentional faux pas that resulted =/ K ri mp et 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it's okay. I don't know the lady in question. I just clicked the link on your user page and thought I should let you know :) 86.137.57.73 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

notability is a guideline, but verifiability is a non-negotiable policy. I am not userfying the article; if reliable sources existed, the article could be restored fully, but it's been clearly established that none exist thus there's no way to source the article, and userspace is not intended simply for copies of deleted articles.

Hi Krimpet, I cannot quite follow your hidden archive magic; it's wonderful. So I am copying your reply for everyone's clarity; no offense intended. I do insist you provide me with a copy of the deleted version, so I can look for sources and new info. If you are afraid that even in userspace this article will harm wikipedia, then please copy the latest version of the article here:

• http://www.talk2000.nl/mediawiki/index.php/User:Xiutwel/Zeitgeist_the_Movie

Is that ok with you? I am very disappointed though, not being able to see its history in detail. Perhaps you will copy the history as text, since it cannot be transferred, so I can at least read the comments and editors names. Thx for considering —  Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have sent you a copy of the final revision before it was deleted via the "e-mail this user" feature, which is acceptable. As I already explained above, I will not userfy it as it has been clearly established that no reliable sources exist to improve this article's sourcing, and userspace is not to be used simply for keeping copies of deleted articles around. K ri mp et 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I received it. Will you please also mail me the talk page? And the history?—  Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm calling again, assuming you overlooked my request? I would appreciate receiving the history and talk page (in order to further improve the article outside of wikipedia hoping to meet its criteria in the future.) —  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not reclose ED. We want actual conensus, and I have found sixteen or so outside sources. I think the MSNBC mention focused enough on ED to make it notable. Moar mudkipz 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock that account immediately. By the way, ArbCom never said we couldn't have an article about ED, don't speedy close the DRV. Howeltead 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If the only reason you have blocked this account is for reverting the rather contentious clsoe of the ED DRV, please unblock. I think we really should let that discussion continue -- I want to know whethe there are or are not valid sourcves that would make ED notable. I don't read the arbcom decision as forever preventing an aricel on the subject (nor IMO would it be within their powers to have doen so) and I certianl;y don't read it as forbidding discussing whether such an articel would or would not be notable. If notability were establish, we might, in a quite unusual moove, have an article about a web site without a link to it. DES ^(talk) 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him, as well as the above Howeltead, for being obvious single-purpose accounts. Both were created in April to add information about ED to LiveJournal, disappeared, and have now resurfaced to re-open a closed DRV (and for the record, I was not the first to close the DRV, Starblind closed it first, but was reverted by the DRV nominator. K ri mp et 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that being an SPA is in no way blockable. What evididence of disruptive editing is there, beyoned the DRV closure? DES ^(talk) 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It was clear from both accounts's edits that he created these solely to promote and votestack discussions on Encyclopedia Dramatica-related content. This is completely against the letter and spirit of our sock puppetry policy, and indefinitely blocking these accounts is standard procedure. K ri mp et 02:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I am Judge Florentino V. Floro. May I please ask your kindness to allow my User page to exist, since it was deleted. Initially I created

User:Judgefloro

and thereafter I created

User:florentino floro

I told FisherQueen, admin, that I prefer the second one, and from that time I did not use the first.

I am a beginner, so please give me a chance

and if I have errors, or mistakes, give me warnings, to correct

SINCERELY -- Florentino floro 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've offered to become a good editor, stop blocking my accounts. Note that I will be using this account for editing, please do not block it. Trynton Shines 03:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, but if you start disrupting the DRV process and trolling again as with your previous 6 accounts, you will be blocked again. K ri mp et 03:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Krimpet. Thanks for your edits to Billy Mays. Maybe you can help me (I'm the one who did the "not without his detractors" edit that you just removed). Believe me, I don't take offense. My problem is, the article as written is not NPOV. It praises Mays, while a simple google of "Billy Mays" and "obnoxious" returns many hundreds of hits - many people have very strong negative opinions about his yelling/selling style, including "I can't get to the remote fast enough" and some other very harsh words for him. The other point of view should be given, somehow. Yes, I can find hundreds and hundreds, but not by any authority or notable journalist. Maybe if I restore my edit, and add a few more citations? I really want to bring this article more toward NPOV. Your opinion is appreciated. Thanks... -- Gekritzl 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to ensure an NPOV; I certainly agree that he has his detractors, however the problem is that our biographies of living persons policy is very clear that all negative information on living persons must be firmly referenced in reliable sources. If you can find any information about his detractors in reliable sources, such as a newspaper or magazine article, to cite these claims, you can go ahead and re-add them to the article. K ri mp et 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been trying to find quotes from reliable sources, but only the common folk (and again, by the hundreds) write about how irritating they find his commercials. :) Maybe someone of note will also do so. -- Gekritzl 10:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give the proper results when closing AfDs. While a sense of humor is appreciated, using pictures in lieu of clear verdicts is really confusing. Peacent 15:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't confused at all, nor would anyone else have been confused given the subsequent discussion. Perhaps they should be given with an image tag stating the textual equivalent? GreenReaper 16:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My intent was not to confuse anyone at all; I made sure to indicate the result in a clear, unambiguous edit summary when closing that AfD, as well as on the {{ oldafdfull}} template on the talk page; in addition, the consensus of the debate should be quite clear from a quick review of the discussion itself. This was only intended as a little fun. =/ K ri mp et 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't see it as being confusing and, to be honest, we need a little more humour here, esp. for us admins where things can get stressy - Alison ☺ 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. AfDs are closed and archived because they are meant to be kept as records [for future reference]. Clear results need to be given on the AfDs, not elsewhere. Btw, could you please fix the verdict here? Thank you. Peacent 03:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to finish off the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight pride (2nd nomination). Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on this for the last fifteen minutes. K ri mp et 10:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's just that somtimes people do forget to finsh them. I saw one sit for 12 hours. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why you deleted this. If you look in the history, it is apparant that the article was not a candidate for speedy deletion. It was not advertising in the context that would allow it to be speediable. And if it wasn't notable, there were enough sources that it would have to have been AfD'd at least. i  ^{(said) (did)} 06:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There was also a holdon tag there. That means you should have gone to the page first and discussed it. The sd tag was added by a user that was frustrated with his bold revisions being reverted (per WP:BRD). He refused to accept that his version wasn't automatically better, and was littering the entire article with warning tags to then retroactively justify his changes, making an end-run around consensus and BRD. Without looking at the talk page or heeding the holdon tag, you seem to have just up and deleted this article. I expect you to explain yourself, considering many editors, myself included, worked to write that article in proper Wikipedia style, with 5 or so independent references (maybe more, I'd go count but you know, the page is gone). It was, in no way shape or form, advertising. That should have been clear. -- Cheeser1 06:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware it was not a speedy candidate; I did not try to misrepresent it as such, but rather I was simply being bold. I saw no evidence whatsoever that the article in its current condition was nothing more than synthesized original research, painting "straight pride" as a notable movement by cherry-picking a few unrelated uses of the term combined with sources from a non-notable website. NPOV and no original research are two of our most important cornerstone policies, and the article in this form violated them. I would not object at all to a properly written, firmly sourced article on the subject if one could be written.

I am confident that AfD would agree with me; nonetheless, if anyone thinks otherwise and wants to put it through AfD instead, I would be willing to restore the article so it can be AfD'd. K ri mp et 06:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The summary of the deletion cited "blatant advertising." Are you saying that this summary does not reflect the actual reasons for the deletion? I certainly consider that to be bold, but not in a good way. I am also not aware of the fact that something like WP:BRD is asking you to be bold by deleting articles, which is not something that most users can revert. I would have been happy to discuss any of the "bold" things going on (be it one user gutting the article, or you deleting it outright), but consensus is just as fundamental as WP:OR and WP:NPOV, if not moreso, and it seems like neither of you gave consensus any fair shake. You know, since some of us have worked on that article to do the best with what we have. I've mentioned deletion and bold changes as two possible ways to fix the article, because I know that despite any improvements we have made, it is not perfect. But I would not simply do such things without consensus first. It bothers me that others would, especially people who haven't edited the page until today/yesterday. -- Cheeser1 06:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem I immediately see with the article is that it very much reads as original research and that the term is seriously non-notable. I would expect there to be a lot more evidence on-line to support this neologism. The Google Test does not impress either. Frankly, it's almost as if the WP article is straining to create credence for an otherwise non-notable term; one which is a rather blatant backlash against the obvious Gay pride - Alison ☺ 07:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I don't see those calls as ones admins can automatically make. Admins can only on-sight delete SD candidates correct? Speedy deletion does not extend to original research. It does extend to notability, as long as it is not asserted. There were some sources, and that, IMO, qualifies as assertion, at least in the context of its ability to be speedy deleted. I would request that it be undeleted, and go to AfD, since I disagree that it should have been deleted without a wider opinion. i  ^{(said) (did)} 07:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I learned of this deletion from a post at WP:AN/I. While I am not knowledgeable in the realm of gender or GLBT studies, the deleted article appeared to document an actual reported movement, despite the inherent bias of its proponents. Since there appear to be editors who disagree with your deletion, I would like to request that you undelete it for further review at WP:AFD, or at least at WP:DRV. Note that I don't mean to advocate for or against the concept in any future discussion, but due to the apparent opposition and the previous AfD, this deletion can't be justified as a unilateral decision. Thank you for your consideration, ˉˉ ^anetode ╦╩ 08:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it up for AfD, it looks like the nomination is going about as you expected. ˉˉ ^anetode ╦╩ 14:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

oh i see, my comment is a personal attack but others, for example one who called him a "dumb-ass little shit" and SqueakBox (annoying user of the week) agreeing, isn't? p-lease, your removal of solely my comment is unfair and irrational (as it was just speaking the truth - wikipedia's obsession with civility borders on the ridiculous when it means people have to hide what they really think and play nice with obviously disruptive users so that they won't get hit with the banhammer). 86.137.24.224 10:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that other users have been making personal attacks does not give you license to do so as well. I happened to notice your blatant personal attack from my watchlist, so I removed it; had I noticed these other attacks you are referring to I would have removed them and warned the user as well. WP:NPA is non-negotiable; Wikipedia is a community project. K ri mp et 10:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am 86.137.57.73 further up the page, by the way. The fact is, my comment was more factual than anything else: Sceptre pops up on ANI every other day complaining about imaginary wrongdoings unto himself and this is yet another episode in a long series of whining and bitching to get rid of anything, I mean seriously anything, that he disagrees with. I don't know if he is just trying to troll you or he really is that full of himself that he thinks every sentence uttered anywhere in existence is directly relevant to him. 86.137.24.224 10:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sceptre's propensity for drama can be rather tiring at times, I agree. =/ However, attacks like "LOL, go outside" and "the Wikipedian Thought Police" (the latter seemingly directed at more than just him) only serve to exacerbate the situation further, which is why they are not tolerated here at Wikipedia. K ri mp et 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do not wish to get involved, please ignore this.

I noticed that you recently got annoyed with the U.S. roads WikiProject. I have been having similar issues; it seems like they refuse to listen to reason. For instance, on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pennsylvania Route 39, Son struck out my objections three times after claiming to have fixed them; I warned him after each time but he simply ignored me. He still has not said anything about it, and JA10 began accusing me of not assuming good faith and "making a big deal". Two days after, JA10 decides to bring it up again at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC).

If you do not mind, can you please offer some advice on how to best deal with this constant hounding whenever I bring up an error by one of several people? Thank you. -- NE2 05:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am rather disturbed by the USRD leadership's behavior regarding your RfC. It seems they've tried to tar and feather you for both properly enforcing our fair-use guidelines, and for trying to alleviate what you considered valid concerns about the "adopt-a-highway" template.

It's unfortunate that despite their continued hard work at producing quality content, USRD has become very bureaucratic and non-transparent in recent months, ruling the road articles by fiat in the name of "consensus," while casting away the core Wikipedia spirit of being bold. Most distressing is that is seems they may now be attempting to abuse process and wikilawyer to get their own way; they apparently attempted to votestack this RfC against me by collaborating on IRC, and your RfC seems to be in a very similar vein. I am considering bringing this unacceptable behavior up to them on WT:USRD myself.

If this unacceptable behavior continues, I would suggest going through the dispute resolution channels; I would be willing to collaborate with you on this if you do. It is not tolerable that USRD has been trying to hound you for perfectly good-faith contributions to our encyclopedia. K ri mp et 05:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought RFC was part of the dispute resolution process. If the only input is from them, like on this RFC, I don't see what the difference would be if I were to bring it against them. I may be decent at working on articles, but I don't care to work through the bureaucratic process. -- NE2 06:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

		Thank you
		Thank you for your support of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. — TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, where did he OK it? he didn't tell me and I didn't see it. sorry, I didn't know I needed permission to make a page. Fromage911 07:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed it with him in private on IRC, and he said he was OK with me bringing it back to AfD. Please keep in mind that you do not need permission to make a page -- Wikipedia is intended to be edited by anyone! =) Unfortunately Ryulong's hasty deletion of your article was rather out of line; given the sources you provided, I am actually somewhat confident that the article will pass AfD as "keep." I apologize that this debacle may have been intimidating to you as a new user. =/ K ri mp et 07:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:TheFearow, you will be blocked from editing. This is a joke, don't take it seriously. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Krimpet, you deleted my AQ storyline page. I figured it was way too long, but I DID use it as a record. Is it possible for you to either bring it back temporarily so it can be copy and pasted into a word document, or maybe have the final revision before the deletion sent to me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AQWIKI ( talk • contribs) 23:49, July 29, 2007 (UTC)

I have e-mailed you the final revision as requested. I apologize that the article had to be deleted, but was generally agreed upon it did not meet our inclusion guidelines. =/ I see you put quite a bit of effort into the article, and I hate to see it go to waste: it appears that a wiki dedicated to AdventureQuest does exist, though; perhaps you would like to contribute this there? =) (It appears you were the sole author of the content in this article, so there shouldn't be any licensing concerns.) K ri mp et 00:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Krimpet, thanks for your intervention on the white people article. However the version protected contains the controversial material that has been added in the last 24 hours. I think in order to keep the discussion of material in good spirits, it would be great if we could discuss changes to a more stable version from anytime before yesterday when the disputes began. The material that has been Much of the controversial material was added by User:Lukas19 who has since been banned. see also the talk page archive Muntuwandi 13:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Per our protection policy, articles are protected in the state they are in. As the protection template says, protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Please discuss proposed changes on the article's talk page. K ri mp et 13:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping track of the amount of days, but I assume the vote is over and the page has been deleted. I have saved the last version of the article to my sandbox and wanted to know if some of the referenced material could be merged to the "Gay pride" article as part of the "Opposition" section that I had previously removed for lack of sourcing. I think it can be done in a neutral way that will be satisfactory. The article is my new Jumpaclass project and since the other was my original project I thought the information provided by the last author could still be useful.-- Amadscientist 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review and maybe post a request there - Alison ☺ 22:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!-- Amadscientist 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Krimpet. You have duplicate votes on Giggy's RfA, curiously enough you've both supported and opposed. Can you clarify on the page which one is your vote? Thanks. -- Deskana (banana) 00:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've struck out my inital support; I apologize, I had forgotten I !voted the first time, before the information that led to my oppose was brought up. K ri mp et 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Krimpet, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U ^C P 04:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Krimpet. I undid his block as it seems that his opponent (an admin) also broke 3RR. I think simply locking the page is better as this clash seems to be an isolated incident from two prodcutive users (Peter's userpage). Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Heyya Krimpet. I vandalised your userpage somewhat, as I recall you asking some time back about it. Revert if you hate it :) - Alison ☺ 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, looks great! I'll let you off with just a warning this time. ;) K ri mp et 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For your assistance.-- Fahrenheit451 01:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Woo!!! Happy birthday, Krimpet :) Yayy!! - Alison ☺ 00:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both! =D K ri mp et 06:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Birthday... You can only have one day in a year to mess around and get away with it...:) (By the way, nice committed identity) -- Dark Falls ^talk 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a Happy Birthday, Krimpet!-- Fahrenheit451 20:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Commons Ambassador Barnstar
		For the creation of CH2 to make the move of images to the Commons even more ridiculously easy. Much thanks! fuzzy510 02:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I'd like to take you up on your offer to lend a hand with administrative chores. Please see The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson and its edit history. User Scorpion0422 deleted an image, first with no reason. I restored, then the user deleted it stating "does not illustrate any key point of the episode".

I contacted Scorpion0422 and suggested that his/her edits were in good faith, then asked him/her to cite WP policy for its deletion -- WP:NONFREE was the answer, which is clearly not applicable. Also I pointed out there is no policy that an image must "illustrate any key point of the episode." There is WP:Images, which I've cited on the discussion page.

Please see the discussion at the article's Talk page.

I restored the image; Scorpion0422 deleted it (again) with reason "2 people think the image - which is fan art, NOT a screenshot - is unnecessary."

We're just about into edit wars at this point! :)

I haven't replied to the most recent deletion, but I'd say this: nothing is really "necessary" on WP (other than the obvious: neutral, encyclopedic, verifiable, legal). The image is relevant though, adds content, and a visual break -- and is fully compliant with WP:Images policy. Moreover, while "2 people" have voiced their opinion on the talk page (one of whom did not sign), there could be hundreds who have seen the article, liked it, and of course would not think to comment on the talk page "I like the crab juice image" or anything like that.

By the way, I have the screenshot on my computer but thought it would infringe copyright if I posted it to the article; am I correct? I'd be glad to replace what Scorpion0422 calls "fan art" with a low resolution screenshot if it's legal.

More: Scorpion0422 replied saying "a WP:SIMPSONS rule is to not use fan graphics on episode pages and limit it only to screenshots." I could find nothing in WP:SIMPSONS policy on that, and asked for a specific link and policy quote. Scorpion0422 did not provide me with this, stating next: "using screenshots for TV shows is okay, as long as you provide a fair use rationale." It is my belief there is no such policy at WP:SIMPSONS. ... Thanks again... -- Gekritzl 01:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Gekritzl 16:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, El on ka 04:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master son ^{T - C} 16:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think your protection was particularly well-advised, but since (as I say in the reply on my talkpage) I do consider myself involved now, I'm not going to unprotect of course. dab (𒁳) 08:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you closed it the last time, you should be aware of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_6#Infinite_monkey_theorem_in_popular_culture. Regards.-- Chaser - T 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Look this voting Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 29 in part which is speaking about Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95. Because of this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LAz17 1 user need to be blocked. User Semberac need to be bloked because he has voted first time like user Semberac and second time like user Benkovac. Please tell me if I making mistake in my thinking ? You are 3rd administrator which I ask to block this serbian fundamentalist user. First 2 have been saying that they not know enough wiki policy about sockppupet blocking. You have edited sockppupet article so ...-- Rjecina 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

• Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs)
• TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats}
• master son ^{T - C}
• Son ^Talk
• ( →O - R L Y?)

Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you closed an Afd less than four hours after it opened even though the creater of the article subject to discussion was not noted. Plesee see this edit. Would you please open the debate so that others with a different perspective can participate, and also undelete the article. Thanks. Spa toss 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, how can you tell it's a proxy? I've heard they're a big probelm and I'd like to helo out. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 03:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I googled a couple of IPs that we've been receiving spam attacks from, and found they were all on a huuuuge list of open proxies. I've only made a drop in the bucket so far =O Thanks for the barnstar! =) --K ri mp et 03:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Woman's Barnstar
		Wow, you're all over the block log! Keep up the good work! Cheers, JetLover (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Krimpet. I am currently part of a project working on creating an independent mediawiki site for a TV series, and that means that several templates have to be made from scratch on the new site. I thought you might be able to give me some advice; first, how do I create a Main Page? That looks like a "Portal" page that is, you know. I don't think you'll know how to set up a whole one, but at least, can you tell me where the instructions list is that tells me how to do this? Nextly, how do I create a references or footnotes template? I've tried copy-pasting what I saw at "Template:Reflist", but that didn't work. It said you were the Admin that protected the page, so I cam to ask you; how do I create a footnotes/references template from scratch? I mean just a basic setup so that if I enclose information inside of <ref></ref> tags and add a "{{reflist}} tag on the bottom of the page it will create a footnotes section. Can you please tell me how to set up such a template on a blank new mediawiki site? Thanks. -- Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your best bet for getting started on a good Main Page portal would be to check out the different featured portals for ideas and code examples; in particular, how to code the tables, and how to split things like news, featured content, etc. onto templates which are then transcluded onto the page. And as for the references: install the Cite extension in your MediaWiki; this adds the <ref> and <references/> functionality, and the code of the {{ reflist}} template should then work as well.

Good luck! =) --K ri mp et 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on the main template thing; it's just a big portal. Okay. But how do I download this cite extension? You mean this is the only way to add in the ref template stuff?-- Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 22:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the cite extension must be downloaded and installed in order to use the references tags; there's no way to do it in wikicode alone. =/ There are some short installation instructions for the extension here; you may also be able to to find installation help from someone at the MediaWiki support desk. --K ri mp et 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Krimpet. I've been making myself an index of technical help and tricks, and, while roaming through your subpages, came across your signature subpage. It would seem that by replacing the current code with '''<font color="#FFA52B">K<font color="#C31562">[[User:Krimpet|r]]</font>i<font color="#C31562">[[User talk:Krimpet|m]]</font>p<font color="#C31562">[[Special:Contributions/Krimpet|e]]</font>t</font>''' , you could make it shorter but with the same functionality. Just FYI. Picaroon (t) 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! That did in fact lower the size significantly. --K ri mp et 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The page for "Zeitgeist the Movie" was deleted yet I'll be damned if I can find a reason why. Certainly an encyclopedia that gives Tim the Enchanter his own page should have one on a film that nearly 100,000 people have seen.-- RufusGermanicus 10:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the associated AfD discussion. --K ri mp et 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha-alp! I'm not sure if it's just that I'm too tired to think, or if it's a terminal case of cranial rectumitis, but I can't get your CH2 script to work! What am I doing wrong? I've loaded it up in my .js, cleared the cache, and ... nothing. Mebbe you can figure out something. <beg> Please help me! </beg> Thanks! - NDCompuGeek 12:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Krimpet, thanks once again for the Zeitgeist the Movie article. I would like to also receive the edit history and the talk page. Are you willing to provide them? &#151;  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My retinas! ;) - Alison ☺ 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Aww, is it really that bad? =P I wanted to go for a pink/yellow look like my signature, but I'll admit I'm not the best when it comes to color coordination and such -- if you can think of any better colors, feel free to change them =) --K ri mp et 19:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait... your signature is pinky yellow? I'm seeing orange and burgundy... *rubs eyes frantically* ~ Riana ⁂ 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Riana, you don't need to see the optometrist =) I darkened the colors a while back, making them orange-and-burgandyish, after people told me the yellow, in particular, was hard to read on their screens. Now, to satisfy my sudden unexplained craving for cake... --K ri mp et 20:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Naww - it's not the worst :) Check out Battenberg cake, BTW - Alison ☺ 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your protection of this article seems a little premature. It's not exactly a sustained war. What led you to it? It's not on WP:RPP or your talk page. Tyrenius 03:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I came across the controversy through browsing recent changes. The sheer amount of back-and-forth reversions from multiple editors over the last couple days -- including some admins who should know better -- indicates to me that all involved need to slow down and discuss this on the talk page. --K ri mp et 03:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tyrenius 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a revert-war to me. Good call on the prot., I'd say. It was going nowhere & needed to be defused - Alison ☺ 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

... is awesome & I'm hooked on it already. Only one thing, though. It leaks code from the line below;

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=User:Krimpet/CH2.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

... when I'm doing an edit or when I've just done one, the doc.write often spills it into the text, be it on the edittext or in the page display. See this one. I'm thinking that the above line should be conditional somehow but haven't the js or system knowledge to fix it myself. Anyways - dere ya go ;) - Alison ☺ 18:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Would you mind commenting on the unblock request by PatPeter ( talk · contribs) on their talk page? Thanks, Sandstein 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A template you created, Blink, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 7 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{ db-deprecated}} tag from the template. If you have no objections regarding the deletion, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. -- MZMcBride 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Krimpet. I wanted to say, I do understand your reasons for the block, but I obviously didn't think it was the correct thing to do (even if it had been another editor you'd blocked, and not me). I appreciate your fairly rapid unblocking; thank you. Also, I'd like to apologise for threatening you with an RFC in my initial unblock statement. I'm definitely not going to do that; it would be unfair, as was threatening you with it in the first place. Sorry.

I might see if I can find out how to request my block log be cleaned by a developer, if you are happy for this to be done. I was quite proud of it. Is this the case? Neil  ム 20:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the procedure for contacting the developers to clean your block log is, though I know it has been done for users in the past. You may cite this diff to the developers when you contact them, to confirm: I endorse removing the block from your block log, as I only blocked you as a preventative rather than punitive measure, and now that things have been worked out, a permanent black mark on your otherwise clean block log seems overly harsh and unnecessary. Good luck! --K ri mp et 21:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE_NAME. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eyu100^{( t| fr| Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 22:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I put Lolcode up for DRV again, as it has had significant media and geek culture coverage since then. Since you closed the AFD, I figured you would probably be interested in the second DRV. It doesn't have anything to do with your closure, just with the article having become notable since then. Thanks -- L u c id 07:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time out to write an articulate and informative DRV -- given the sources that you provided, I'm satisfied that it now meets notability and verifiability requirements. I have supported restoring the article. =) --K ri mp et 04:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 11	18 August 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State and national updates Project news Cleanup system revamped Assessment Deletion debates Stubs renamed New York Featured member IRC channel goes global From the editors Minnesota bridge collapses One year after SRNC: A reflection
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Rschen7754bot 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, might I ask where you were asked to threaten me with a block learned about the dispute on Commons? Elonka warned me on her user subpage here, and I see no message here or there from her to you. Proabivouac 07:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka did not "ask me to threaten you with a block on Commons"; I was simply doing my usual job as a Commons admin, and accusing both Elonka and I like that is completely out of line. I saw that you were repeatedly removing content on Commons that was under the project's scope, and as I noticed after a little investigation that it appeared to be part of a dispute on the English Wikipedia, I gave you a firm but good-faith warning. As I said on your Commons talk page, please leave this content dispute on the English Wikipedia. Commons is only an image repository. --K ri mp et 08:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't level any accusation, but asked you a question. (I see why you thought my question accusatory and have amended it accordingly.)

Elonka brought a dispute from Talk:Kaaba onto Commons to begin with (see the discussion for how she suggests bowdlerizing the image as a compromise) [1] and then brought the resulting Commons dispute back onto Wikipedia here.

So, again, how did you learn of this dispute? Proabivouac 09:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka requested a third-party opinion on #wikimedia-commons, the public IRC channel where I, like many Commons users and admins, regularly idle (and all users, including yourself, are encouraged to join), for a quick, informal clarification of whether the Muhammad image was allowed per Commons policies or not. Since I wasn't busy at the time, I looked into it, and confirmed for her that it was indeed within Commons's project scope. After I gave her the answer she was looking for, she left IRC, and that was the end of her involvement.

After looking into it, I had the suspicion that something wasn't quite right about this dispute, and wanted to defuse it if possible before it got out of hand, so I decided to dig deeper. I quickly looked over both your and Elonka's contributions, both on Commons and here, and I noticed that this seemed to be part of a prior, very large dispute here on the English Wikipedia, and worse, that you clearly appeared to be wikistalking Elonka. It is for these reasons that I decided to give you a mildly stern warning -- I wanted to make it clear that disrupting Commons as part of an existing dispute from the English Wikipedia would not be tolerated.

Despite the many allegations that you have been leveling against Elonka, I, and that other random administrator who commented on your talk page, there is not an IRC cabal conspiring against you. Yes, I did initially find out about this dispute while answering Elonka's question on IRC. However, had I discovered your actions through Special:Recentchanges, the administrators' noticeboards, or anywhere else, I would have come to the same conclusion, and issued the same warning; your contributions alone are what I based my warning on. Elonka did not even mention you in the conversation, nor did she even assert that she was correct in the dispute -- she was simply asking for informal help in clarifying Commons policies regarding the image in question. It is your wholly unacceptable conduct -- wikistalking, veiled personal attacks, and serial assumptions of bad faith -- that has been attracting administrative attention on its own. --K ri mp et 10:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, I did initially find out about this dispute while answering Elonka's question on IRC."

Thank you for this clarification.

I've definitely not wikistalked anyone; we can start there. My involvement with the non-defaced image predates any of this [2], and the depictions debate generally predates her involvement by at least six months. This is her extending that debate to the Commons. Proabivouac 10:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, wikistalking? Did I wikistalk too? Me and a couple of other editors including Pro have been very involved in this whole Muhammad images affair on EN Wiki. If someone adds or subtracts an image from the Muhammad gallery on the Commons, we notice it. Perhaps Elonka made the wikistalking allegation on IRC when she came to you. Anyway, I dont see anything wrong with anyone coming on IRC to contact an admin, or is there? Its just like email, contacting someone privately. -- Matt57 ^{( talk• contribs)} 11:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble comes when users in good standing are threatened with blocks or blocked based upon conversations to which they're not privy and cannot respond.

"…that has been attracting administrative attention on its own."

Where has this been occurring? Not on-wiki, either here or on the Commons. Proabivouac 01:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The user was, in good-faith, enforcing WP:NPA#External links, which explicitly states that such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule. THF 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The attack site policy is a very hotly debated topic, and it's clear from Noroton's comments in the AN/I discussion that he understands this, yet forged ahead. The spirit of 3RR is to prevent massive edit warring and reversion without discussion; it's explicitly clear from Noroton's comments that he completely intended to continue reverting indefinitely, instead of actually discussing the issue with others. --K ri mp et 01:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If all it takes is for a couple of editors who were previously in an edit dispute with the attack victim to destroy the consensus over whether the objective WP:NPA#External links rule is subjectively met, then it's not much of a rule. THF 01:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. These were proper edits, enforcing a core policy, which is explicitly exempt from 3RR. This block should be reversed. - Crockspot 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the NPA rule was changed after Noroton was blocked. There is discussion going on at AN/I. THF 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of attack sites has historically been a very controversial issue. Whether or not to declare Michael Moore's site an attack site was hotly debated on AN/I, and opposed by many; it's clear from his comments and edits up to the time I blocked him that Noroton intended to wield policy as a justification to ignore discussing the matter with the community and continue removing links and reverting others' removals. This kind of behavior only makes disputes worse, and only hinders discussion. I firmly believe a block was necessary in this case. --K ri mp et 02:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site. - Crockspot 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't select arbitrary principles and place them out of context, Crockspot. Would the finding of fact, "Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site", be legitimate if one replaced "Encyclopaedia Dramatica" with "MM.com"? -- Iamunknown 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That is a "finding of fact" specific to the case. The other is a "principle" with wider application. Principles are carefully worded to be applicable to all of the English Wikipdeia, beyond the case that they were documented in. - Crockspot 03:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The only links editors may remove without regarding 3RR are attack sites. The only "attack sites", by the very definition the Arbitration Committee set forth, is Encyclopedia Dramatica. Nice job dodging my question. -- Iamunknown 03:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Any site that contains attacks against wiki contributors can be considered an "attack site", even if only temporarily. (while the attack remains). ED is not the only "attack site". - Crockspot 04:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Krimpet. After Noroton requested the article be protected to his preferred version, which was declined, I requested it be protected to the wrong version, to stop an edit war and to prevent anyone from being blocked. (No diffs, sorry, just see WP:RFPP and WP:AN/I.) I am disappointed that the situation devolved so quickly into an edit war, but I realize that the concept of "attack sites" is either under-applied or misunderstood or over-applied and misunderstood, depending upon the opinion of whomever one is talking with.

That said, the page was protected before you blocked Noroton. Blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. In this light, would you consider unblocking Noroton? Thanks, Iamunknown 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the page where Noroton broke 3RR, Michael Moore, was protected, preventing any further reversions from taking place on that page. However, as I explained on the 3RR noticeboard, Noroton was revert-warring on a massive number of other pages as well, both before and after Michael Moore was protected, and continued to announce his intent to revert indefinitely up until his block. It is for these reasons that I decided a block was needed as a preventative measure. --K ri mp et 03:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I disagree somewhat with your decision, but your explanation at WP:AN3 is sensible, and the diff "I will revert forever" (or whatever it said) is revealing. -- Iamunknown 03:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

I'm very sorry: I just realized after unblocking User:Noroton that I should have asked you first. I instructed him not to remove the link again. The main article was protected, so I think this will prevent damage.

I think user's complaints against you are misdirected, but it just seemed a little too ex post facto under the circumstances. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's OK; the block was not really intended as an ex post facto punishment, but rather as a preventative measure as he was still reverting on other pages after Michael Moore was protected, but given your strict caveat to him to avoid touching the links for the time being, I do not object to your unblocking. --K ri mp et 04:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to walk away leaving the impression that I was criticizing you personally, or that I question your good faith in your decision to block. I just thought that you may not have weighed all the relevant factors in coming to that decision. Have a nice evening. - Crockspot 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 12 • September 1, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features WikiProject template system revamped Inactivity report Stub template changes continue	State and national updates Missouri New Jersey New York Wisconsin
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Rschen7754bot 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)